Pages

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

#49: The 2012 VGAs: A Sign of Good Things to Come?

Despite
my many misgivings, harsh criticisms, common sense, and prior threats
to boycott them this year, I went ahead and watched the Video Game
Awards when they aired via Spike TVs livestream. For those who are
unaware, the Spike
TV Video Game Awards are held annually every
holiday season. Most people who follow the industry write off the
award ceremony because the show usually announces the awards in the
background and places a major focus on the announcements and trailers
for upcoming games in their stead. While this is no less true for
this year's ceremony and the VGAs were still very groan-inducing,
something happened which may prove to be significant in the coming
years: The Game of the Year of 2012 was revealed to be Telltale's
The Walking Dead. It was chosen over Assassin's
Creed 3, Dishonored, Journey, and Mass Effect 3. While some might
argue that this is largely irrelevant, I would strongly disagree.
This week, I will explain why this decision to make The Walking Dead
Game of the Year is great for the medium. (Note: I do not intend to
spoil anything about The Walking Dead and will be speaking in broad
strokes. Those afraid of spoilers should not be worried.)

One of
the first reasons that this is a big deal is that unlike previous
Games of the Year for the Spike TV VGAs. The Walking Dead is not a
AAA game. Up until now, the Game of the Year has gone to a AAA
published game without exception. Previous
awards have gone to Madden '04, GTA: San
Andreas, every Bethesda RPG since Oblivion, and Uncharted 2. While
these are all well made games that deserve some sort of accolades
(even Madden, despite my total lack of interest in sports games),
they are all games that come from the biggest publishers in the
industry. Given the nature of the VGAs as more of a hype machine than
an awards show, this makes sense and is something to be expected.
However, this year, the title did not go to one of the ingrained and
well-established names in the industry or one that has a very high
brand recognition. It went to Telltale's take on a comic book
franchise that receives a fairly positive reception, but it largely
irrelevant to the industry at large. This defies the trend of
previous VGA awards. Many people, myself included, figured that Game
of the Year would go to one of two established franchises in the
running, either Assassin's Creed 3 or Mass Effect 3. The Walking Dead
is a game that is produced on a lower budget and on a much lower
scale than most of the other games released this year. This proves to
developers and publishers that AAA-style extremely high budgets are
not required in order to game a great game that can achieve a high
level of popularity and profit, which is something I have complained
about more than one.

The next
reason that The Walking Dead “walking” away with the trophy is a
good thing is that unlike other previous winners of Game of the Year,
it does not have a high emphasis on action. The Walking Dead is very
much a game about talking to people, making decisions, and observing
the emotional impact these decisions have on the ensemble cast of
characters that players meet. It also has a slight emphasis on
puzzles, going back to its roots as a point-and-click adventure game.
This is not the kind of game that one would expect to win Game of the
Year. Those types of games usually have a large focus on other types
of gameplay. Bethesda games tend to focus on exploration of the world
and dealing with the enemies and obstacles that confront them on a
regular basis. Uncharted 2 is a very solid third-person
shooter/platformer hybrid. Bioshock, which won in 2007, is a very
tightly polished shooter. The Walking Dead is a massive change from
all of these. While it does have “combat,” it is incredibly rare
and takes the form of quick-time events. Players will mostly be
talking and solving simple puzzles. What this communicates to the
industry is that games do not always need to involve violence and
killing waves and waves of mooks. It is okay to experiment with
mechanics and try to make games that involve minimal killing or
violence on the players part. Gamers are willing to give new ideas
and concepts a chance. In the past, many people have criticized our
medium for its focus on violence. Knowledge that we can experiment
with this is a very healthy for the industry. Maybe one day we can
see a game where protagonists can be less violent than the usual
fare.

The last
reason that The Walking Dead's victory is a great thing for the
industry is that unlike other games who have won the award in the
past, the primary reason to play The Walking Dead is its story and
how players interact with it. This is directly contrary to years
past, where the winning game's real draw was the mechanics and the
gameplay associated with them, which were almost always completely
divorced from the story. In Bethesda RPGs, the plot is rarely ever of
great significance. The real reason to play is to explore the world
that Bethesda has crafted and see what players can find. GTA games
are well known for giving players the ability to disregard the
campaign in favor of screwing around and playing in a open-world
sandbox. Uncharted 2 and Bioshock do have an emphasis on story, but
they are mostly referred to by their gameplay mechanics and their
nature as shooters. The Walking Dead is not a game that is heavy on
“gameplay” as much as it is “interactivity.” (This is going
to get a little confusing as the vocabulary used to describe video
games is decidedly limited.) Characters and their interactions are
very much at the forefront of the game. Players are encouraged to
talk to people and get to know them. Although it is a
“point-and-click” game, puzzles are not the real reason to play
it. The message this sends to the industry is that we encourage
developers to meddle with the definition of a video game. It is not
vital to include quick-time events or puzzles so that something is
“technically” a video game. After all, those parts of The Walking
Dead tend to be the least interesting, but not necessarily bad, parts
of the game, especially in Episode 1.

To me,
the VGAs are indicative of what the average gamer's perspective. The
enthusiasts like myself sometimes forget that while we love the
industry and are highly involved in it, we are not the only ones in
the industry. Most of the people who are gamers only buy one or two
games per year, probably a Call of Duty and another game, and mostly
play those. It is these people who the VGAs cater to and there is
nothing wrong with that. Looking at it through this lens, the fact
that a game like The Walking Dead was able to win the Game of the
Year is truly astounding. It means that the average gamer is willing
to branch out from their normal gaming routine and try something new
and different. This can only be a positive thing. While I know this
is not going to dethrone the major shooters of the industry, it is a
great start to instilling some sort of change. It is a small victory
that will allow us to press on and aim for larger changes. Do not
think of it as a large victory so much as a shift in momentum. A
small victory is still a victory and we should celebrate while we
can. Now that The Walking Dead game has been achieving so much and
doing so well, it allows us to call into question many
deeply-entrenched beliefs and practices of the industry.

=D FiFA/Madden probably do deserve to win an award once. And only once because each successor will then just be a copy (And hey it turns out 03 was the first year. The judges are secretly super geniuses with long term plans )

The tricky part about your question is the definition of "engaging." That is a very subjective word. What is engaging for one person may not be as engaging to another.

This is where I have to admit my biases. I love it when games allow players to interact with the story to some capacity. This, to me, is a great example of when gameplay is "engaging." Others have different things that light up that region of the brain.

I apologize for this non-answer, but the question isn't exactly a black-and-white one.

However, that can be useful in its own right. The target market for the VGAs are not the kind of gamers like you or I, who closely follow the medium and study it. Rather, it for more (and I hate using this term) "casual" gamers who don't look as closely. Thus, I think it is serviceable as a barometer for what those people (who, I confess, largely outmatch us) think of the industry.

Which is why I feel that The Walking Dead winning GotY in the VGAs is quite significant.